The German Management and Organizational Practices Survey - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The German Management and Organizational Practices Survey International MOPS Workshop December 6 th 2017 Marie-Christine Laible

The GMOP – Overview Joint project: IAB, IfW, infas Study design and questionnaire based on MOPS 2010 Population ‐ Sample drawn from administrative data linked with commercial data ‐ Establishments in manufacturing Time frame ‐ Field phase: 2014/2015 1,927 interviews GMOP Survey 2

Sample Restrictions German administrative data: BHP 2011 ‐ Universe of German establishments with at least one employee subject to social security contributions Linked with Bureau van Dijk’s Orbis database ‐ Company-level financial data Manufacturing and construction industries 25 or more employees Stratified sample ‐ Industry (5 categories) ‐ Size (3 categories) ‐ Region (4 categories - urban/rural) GMOP Survey 3

Enhanced Sample Design Consent to linkage: 53% Consent GMOP Survey 4

Consent to Linkage Informed consent to linkage mandated by law Assumption: Highest-level managers are more likely to consent ‐ Authority and capacity to answer (Snijkers et al., 2013) Linkage Respondent’s job title Total Consent (%) CEO 1,256 61 Manager of multiple establishments 84 40 Manager of one establishment 186 38 Manager within an establishment 220 43 Non-manager 62 27 Other/NA 119 38 Total 1,927 GMOP Survey 5

Who Consents to Linkage? Results of probit estimations Respondent gender and tenure have no effect CEOs more likely to consent compared to other positions (22%) Consent probabilities decrease with decreasing hierarchical positions Consent to linkage bias Small significant bias only for independence of firm Probit Results Consent Bias GMOP Survey 6

Field Phase Mixed mode simultaneous approach ‐ 71% PAPI vs. 29% CAWI Target group: High-level managers ‐ 65% CEOs ‐ 81% male 1,927 valid interviews ‐ In 2014/15 ‐ Retrospective questions for 2008 and 2013 Response rate: 6% Reasons GMOP Survey 7

Response Rates by Strata Number of Number of establishments Response rate participating in the gross (%) establishments sample Size 25-49 employees 15,875 739 4.6 50-99 employees 8,825 588 6.5 100 and more employees 8,147 600 7.2 Industry Food and consumption 3,509 197 5.5 Consumer products 2,766 190 6.8 Industrial goods 5,201 381 7.1 Investment/durable goods 13,916 863 6.0 Construction 7,455 296 3.9 Total 32,847 1,927 5.9 GMOP Survey 8

Response Rate and Representativity Comparison of Means Total GMOP Difference GMOP Population Respondents (2)-(1) Weighted Number of employees (ln) 4.2 (0.9) 4.3 (0.8) 0.1 *** 4.1 (0.8) Female employees (share) 26.5 (21.0) 27.0 (19.0) 0.6 26.6 (19.6) Qualified employees (share) 85.9 (11.3) 86.5 (10.4) 0.6 ** 86.4 (10.6) Trainees/apprentices (share) 4.8 (5.7) 4.7 (5.1) 0.0 4.9 (5.5) Mean age of employees 42.1 (4.1) 42.2 (3.8) 0.1 42.1 (3.9) Median wage of employees 90.5 (30.4) 90.7 (27.7) 0.2 89.6 (27.2) Age of establishment 23.8 (12.0) 23.9 (11.9) 0.4 23.6 (12.1) Observations ~50,800 ~1,880 ~1,880 Notes: Standard deviation in parentheses. Number of observations may vary with variables due to missing observations. Asterisks indicate significance levels: * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Source: Own calculations based on the GMOP survey and the BHP 2011. GMOP Survey 9

Questionnaire Trade-Offs Comparability vs. adaptation to local settings ‐ Ex. „right to work“ in US vs. employee protection in GER Survey length vs. information density ‐ US: Linkage to ASM ‐ GER: „Enhanced“ sample and additional background questions GMOP Survey 10

Content Retrospective closed-ended questions for 2008 and 2013 Background information and economic conditions ‐ Establishment size ‐ Qualification structure ‐ Productivity and competition ‐ Ownership (foreign, family) ‐ Works council and collective agreement ‐ Great Recession 16 questions on management practices as in MOPS ‐ Monitoring ‐ Targets ‐ Incentives GMOP Survey 11

Management Practices Management score Monitoring .8 .8 .6 0.57 .6 0.50 0.50 0.41 .4 .4 .2 .2 0 0 2008 2013 2008 2013 Targets Incentives .8 .8 0.66 0.58 0.58 .6 .6 0.53 .4 .4 .2 .2 East/West Differences 0 0 2008 2013 2008 2013 Management Notes: Weighted. Source: Own calculations based on the GMOP survey. Score GMOP Survey 12

Questionnaire – New Questions Existence and composition of the board of directors (6) Rating questions (5) Work-life balance (5) Health measures (6) GMOP Survey 13

Individual Health Measures and Establishment Size Health days Health checkups Seminars < 100 < 100 < 100 >= 100 >= 100 >= 100 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 Exercise offers Healthy diet Ergonomics < 100 < 100 < 100 >= 100 >= 100 >= 100 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 2008 2013 Multivariate Notes: Weighted. Dotted lines represent the average health score for 2008 and 2013. Results Source: Own calculations based on the GMOP survey. GMOP Survey 14

Results: Heterogeneity in the Management Score Distribution of the Management Management Score Across Score in 2008 and 2013 Establishment Sizes 2013 2.5 4 2 3 1.5 2 1 1 .5 0 0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Management score 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Management score 25 to 50 employees 50 to 249 employees 2008 2013 250 or more employees GMOP Survey 15

Results: Comparison with the US Average management score is higher in US Link between management and productivity is stronger for the US: US Germany (Bloom et. al 2013) Increase in the management score by 0.1 points is associated with an 6.2% 13.6% increase in labor productivity by… Possible explanations: ‐ Smaller establishments (lack of necessity, higher costs ) ‐ Lower labor market flexibility and employee voice ‐ Driven by monitoring and incentives GMOP Survey 16

Data Access GMOP Survey ‐ On-site use at the RDC in Nuremberg and its outposts (and JoSuA) Further information on the GMOP at the RDC: ‐ http://fdz.iab.de/en/FDZ_Data_Access/FDZ_On-Site_Use.aspx ‐ http://fdz.iab.de/en/FDZ_Establishment_Data/GMOP.aspx ‐ Laible, M.- C. & Görg, H. (2017). The German Management and Organizational Practices (GMOP) Survey. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, online first, doi:10.1515/jbnst-2017-1003. GMOP Survey 17

Thank you for your attention! Marie-Christine Laible marie-christine.laible@iab.de Institute for Employment Research (IAB) Education, Training and Employment (D2) and Research Data Center (FDZ) Regensburger Strasse 100 90478 Nuremberg Germany This project is jointly carried out by the IAB, the IfW and infas. It is financed by the Leibniz-Gemeinschaft. www.iab.de

References Presented Results Taken From: Broszeit, S., Fritsch, U., Görg, H., & Laible, M.-C. (2016). Management Practices and Productivity in Germany. IZA Discussion Paper No. 10370, Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor. Broszeit, S. & Laible, M.-C. (2017). Examining the Link Between Health Measures, Management Practices and Establishment Performance. IAB Discussion Paper 26/2017, Nuremberg: Institute for Employment Research. Broszeit, S., & Laible, M.-C. (2016a). German Management and Organizational Practices Survey (GMOP 0813): Data Collection. FDZ-Methodenreport 06/2016, Nuremberg: Institute for Employment Research. Broszeit, S., & Laible, M.-C. (2016b). German Management and Organizational Practices Survey (GMOP 0813): Data Documentation. FDZ-Datenreport 09/2016, Nuremberg: Institute for Employment Research. Broszeit, S., & Laible, M.-C. (2017). The German Management and Organizational Practices (GMOP) Survey: Survey Design and Data Quality. FDZ-Methodenreport 02/2017, Nuremberg: Institute for Employment Research. GMOP Survey 19

Population Restrictions for Sampling Target Population 54.619 BvD-Matching 46.643 Keep only establishments that are active in 2014 45.415 Keep only one establishment per firm 41.861 Drop duplicates 40.114 Drop pretest establishments 39.978 Frame Population 39.978 GMOP Survey 20

GMOP: Data Representativity Possible Concerns Response Rates ‐ Comparisons of means show that sample is representative of target population Recall Bias ‐ Comparisons of administrative and survey data show that recall bias keeps within limits Unit Non-Response ‐ Probit estimations for taking part in the survey show that systematic unit non-response of specific establishments did not occur Linkage Consent Bias ‐ Comparisons of means show no consent bias GMOP Survey 21

Insights from the Pretest: Response Rates are Problematic Refinement calls to obtain name and E-Mail of target manager ‐ Establishments with > 50 employees had high refusal rates and low accessibility of contact person Low response rates in pretest ‐ Response rates higher for establishments with refinement calls ‐ Addressing survey to contact person had no observable effect for larger establishments Consequences: ‐ Refinement calls in field phase only for establishments with <50 employees GMOP Survey 22